The EHCP evidence checklist

A practical reference for SENDCos building EHCP evidence packs. Every section the local authority expects, in one printable list.

How to use this checklist

This checklist is the one I wish I'd had when I started writing EHCP evidence packs by hand. It's structured to mirror what a typical local authority expects to see, with a tick-list for each section and a note on where the data comes from.

Use it as a final pass before submitting an evidence pack to the LA. Or use it as a planning tool to identify gaps in your data before they become a problem.

The checklist is non-statutory — every LA has slightly different expectations — but it covers the ten sections most LAs look for, and a pack that ticks every box on this list will be a stronger application than most.

— Leanne Awcock, co-founder, My School View

Section 1: Attendance summary

Source: MIS

• Overall attendance % for current academic year
• Overall attendance % for previous academic year (comparison)
• Authorised absence breakdown
• Unauthorised absence breakdown
• Lateness pattern (number of late marks, time of arrival pattern)
• Lesson-level attendance if available (which lessons are missed disproportionately)
• Any attendance interventions in place (and outcome)
• Attendance trend (improving, stable, declining) with brief commentary

Quick check: Does the trend tell a story the LA can follow?

Section 2: Behaviour and exclusions

Source: MIS

• Behaviour incidents over the last 12 months (count by category)
• Severity breakdown (low, medium, high)
• Patterns identified (time of day, subject, peer group, time of year)
• Any fixed-term exclusions with dates and reasons
• Any internal exclusions or seclusions
• Pastoral interventions in place (and outcome)
• Behaviour support plan if relevant
• Brief commentary contextualising behaviour within need

Quick check: Is the behaviour data framed within the picture of need?

Section 3: Graduated approach (APDR cycles)

Source: SEND records

This is the most important section. The LA expects at least two completed cycles; three is stronger.

For each cycle:

• Assessment data (what was assessed, by whom, when)
• Plan (provision and outcomes set)
• Do (delivery record, any changes made)
• Review (outcome RAG status, what worked, what didn't)
• Parent contribution to the cycle
• Pupil voice from the cycle
• Changes made for the next cycle

Quick check: Can the LA follow the story across cycles? Does each one show learning?

Section 4: Intervention history with costs

Source: SEND records, finance

For each intervention:

• Specific name (not "small group support")
• Who delivers it
• Frequency and duration (e.g. "3 × 20 min/week")
• Cost per term and per year
• Targeted outcome(s) it links to
• Outcome RAG status at most recent review
• Provider (in-house, external, charity, etc.)

Quick check: Is total spend per pupil at or above the £6,000 threshold for SEN Support?

Section 5: Professional involvement

Source: SEND records

For each professional:

• Name and discipline (EP, SALT, OT, CAMHS, school nurse, specialist teacher)
• Date(s) of involvement
• Summary of input (assessment, recommendations, sessions)
• How the school has acted on recommendations
• Outcome of professional input (where measurable)
• Date of next planned input (if ongoing)

Quick check: Has every recommendation been actioned, or noted with a reason if not?

Section 6: Medical needs

Source: MIS, school nurse, parent

• Diagnosed conditions (with diagnosis date and clinician where available)
• Medication held by school (with dosage)
• Care plan reference (full plan can be appended or referenced)
• Allergies and emergency procedures
• EpiPen / inhaler / insulin status
• Healthcare professionals involved
• Any safeguarding considerations linked to medical need

Quick check: Is the medical care plan up to date and signed by both school and parent?

Section 7: Safeguarding

Source: DSL (stub only — full record stays with DSL)

• Indication that a safeguarding record exists (yes / no)
• Statement that the DSL holds the full record
• Contact route for the LA if more information is needed
• No confidential safeguarding details in the pack itself

Quick check: Is the redaction model clear? The LA knows the record exists and how to ask.

Section 8: Attainment and progress

Source: MIS, assessment system

• Current attainment (KS tests, GCSE projections, reading age, working at age-related expectations or below)
• Progress over the last year (improving, plateaued, declining)
• Targets set and progress against them
• Any specific cognitive assessments relevant
• Reading and numeracy where relevant for the need

Quick check: Does the trend match the rest of the picture? Coherence matters.

Section 9: EHCP outcomes (proposed)

Source: SEND records, parent contribution

For each proposed outcome:

• Specific (not vague)
• Measurable (has an indicator)
• Mapped to one of the four areas of need
• Realistic time horizon
• For older pupils: includes preparation for adulthood (employment, independent living, community participation, health)
• Discussed with parents

Quick check: Would these outcomes still make sense in two years' time?

Section 10: Pupil and parent voice

Source: Direct contribution

Pupil voice

• What do you enjoy at school?
• What do you find hard?
• What helps?
• What would make school better?
• What do you want to do when you finish school?
• Date and method of capture

Parent voice

• What's working at home?
• What concerns you?
• What does your child say about school?
• What support has been most helpful?
• What outcomes do you most want for your child?
• Date and method of capture
• Both parents/carers contribution if relevant

Quick check: Are these direct quotes wherever possible? The LA reads this section closely.

Final pack checklist

Before submission:

• Date of generation on the front page
• Pupil's name and DOB clearly visible
• School's name and contact details
• SENDCo's name and contact details
• Page numbers
• Contents page if over 15 pages
• Source attribution under each table
• Reasonable length (12–30 pages typical)
• Shared with parents before submission
• Parent agreement to submission documented
• Submitted in the LA's preferred format (Word or PDF)

Common reasons EHCP applications get bounced

Based on what we hear from LAs and SENDCos:

• Insufficient APDR evidence. Less than two completed cycles, or cycles without RAG'd outcomes.
• Vague provision. Provision listed without specificity (who, when, cost).
• No parent voice. The pack reads as if the parents weren't involved.
• Behaviour data without context. High incident counts framed as "behaviour problems" rather than as evidence of unmet need.
• Missing professional input. No EP report, or EP report from years ago.
• Inconsistent narrative. Different sections telling different stories.
• Medical and safeguarding mishandled. Either over-shared (confidential info in the pack) or under-shared (key facts omitted).

A pack that ticks every box on this checklist avoids most of these.

What we built

SENDCo View generates the structured EHCP evidence pack in one click. Live MIS data fused in. SEND-specific data captured through normal daily work. Parent voice flowing in from the parent portal. Audit-trailed throughout.

See how the EHCP evidence pack works →

If you'd like the longer companion guide — Preparing for ISPs: a 12-month plan for SENDCos — it's available alongside this checklist.